Question on Alternative Assault Resolution

[Volcano Man]

The main difference with the Alt Assault Resolution is how it handles hard targets in assaults, as per the rules. It basically gives a little more advantage to armor in these cases, and it allows range 0 hard attack ratings to be factored at all. Without the AAR rule, then range 0 hard attack values do not play a role.

You can turn this rule off if you want, it won't bother me. ;) If you do turn it off though, then you will start to lose quite a few more tanks in assaults against infantry than you probably should, *especially* in the 1940-1943 period.

Other than that, I was speaking from memory about that scenario. Having opened it now, I see that there are nothing but Stuart tanks and light AT guns available to the US forces in that scenario and yes, the hard attack values are roughly in line with the stock game values in that regards (because it is the low end of the spectrum), so that kind of makes what I said a moot point. I think you will still find, by and large, that the assault values of infantry in the _Alt are usually higher though. As to why all this is, well, I can't really explain it again other than to say that you should pick your poison; if you prefer the stock game and its rules then by all means play it that way. The _Alt is only meant to be a standardization of unit ratings, mobility, and tweaks for balance where needed, all for a different experience - but it isn't the be all end all. It is normal for different people to prefer one of the other.

In regards to the scenario specifically mentioned, I suggested that I would lower the BUNKER to Bunker to make things easier, and at least one person opposed that saying that it is pretty balanced already. So, I don't know what to say, sorry. I may still do that to see if it changes anything drastically, or not.